Like lawyers who write in a language that often needs interpreting, liberal politicians have a language that often needs interpreting also. With this in mind, I would like to offer an interpretation to what Karen Shepherd said in trying to justify her vote in favor of the so-called anti-crime bill.
She was quoted as saying "that had the bill passed, Utah would have received more than $270 million - including $146 million for crime-fighting and prevention, $98 million for 1,000 additional police officers, $15 million for prison construction and inmate boot camps, and millions more dollars for drug courts and hiring more judges and prosecutors."This is made to sound like a gift from outer space by Rep. Shepherd. Interpreted, this means that Utahns would have to come up with all of these additional millions to pay for these programs, which would eventually mean extra taxes. Since the federal bureaucracy consumes approximately 50 percent of the money taken in for the operation of programs sponsored by the federal government, Utahns would have to come up with an additional $270 million to pay for the government to organize, manage, control, oversee and regulate the above programs.
Government is not a producer of wealth but a consumer. The best that government can do is to take the money from the person who earned it and give it to another, and that process is closer to stealing than to charity. Shepherd would do well to read the Constitution periodically, especially the limitations placed on the federal government.